I haven't read all four pages, but from what I can tell they are denying, yet at the same time, admitting to the fact that they WERE armed with these
projectiles all in the same sentence. . .
Department personnel on site for the raid were not carrying projectiles, and the two who were equipped with them did not fire.
they were not carrying, yet the two equipped . . . . uhhhh I thought they said they weren't carrying projectiles
Is it common practice in California for the police to publicly state conjecture of the outcome of an ongoing investigation while said
investigation is occurring? Isn't that just stating a predetermined outcome decided upon regardless of what the investigation actually finds?
*I shoot a man in the leg*
”Ow! You shot me”
”No I didn't. But don't worry, I'll find out who did ”
That's it, that's the mask the little creeps wear. They throw rocks and bottles at the Police and then make videos where they lie about what
happened. Even those who side with them and lie for them know it's true.
I don't know what videos you are watching, but I have yet to see one of an OWS protest where protesters were throwing rocks or bottles. I've seen
plenty where police were shooting and throwing projectiles at the crowds of people though, especially in this specific incident. I don't know what
you're trying to prove by making your claims when there is a very popular video showing this guy going down the the ground immediate about a police
projectile detonates/shot near him.
Okay, I have asked nicely, and dislike being ignored. As I mentioned, I
won't ask a third time.
Rather, if a post contains any sort of insult directed at any other member or groups of members, I'm removing it completely. Members who persist in
substituting ad hominem attacks for pertinent commentary will be
post banned until they get the point.
I want to emphasize that opinions about the topic, pro, con or indifferent, are always welcome and I don't want anyone to be discouraged from posting.
But that's just it: rude behavior discourages people from posting, so I would rather just get rid of that.
Again, I can't adequately express my gratitude to everyone who chooses to Deny Ignorance by contributing your honest opinions in a polite, scholarly
manner, as so many of you have already done in this thread.
I do this for your benefit, and am honored to be at your service.
Edit: Oops! And again, please don't interpret as a response to the post above. I'm referring to problem posts that have been removed. I really should
be more clear about that going forward.
edit on 11/2/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)
Interesting. Good find.
From what I could see, the canisters being thrown back at the police had high parabola (arching trails), and you can see a canister that is moving at
some speed toward Olsen. The smoke trail only begins a few feet from him (as someone mentioned, there's probably a time fuse to stop the smoke from
starting as it leaves the muzzle).
Since Olson was facing the police the entire time and since he was struck in the front of the head, it stands to reason that he was struck from
something that came form the direction of the police. I don't really see how the projectile that struck Olsen originated from any source outside of
the police. All the videos I have watched seem to corroborate this reasoning.
edit on 2-11-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason
given)
Still don't see the shot that supposedly hit olsen. Though at the 6sec mark you can hear the Police clearly say that chemical agents will be used, so
they had time to move on and olsen wouldn't have been hurt if it were from the Police. At the 29sec mark olsen gets something from his pocket, any
idea what? At 47sec mark someone runs right up behind olsen, someone blind siding him? And I do have to agree the flash bang at the group going up to
olsen is in bad taste.
Just watched this video and still didn't see anything. Even the reporter there didn't see anything at the 4:29 mark.
Checked the 1:40 mark again and still seen nothing.
edit on 2-11-2011 by Chance321 because: (no reason given)
The 1:40 mark. Olsen is standing on the [verticle white line] on the lefthand side of the screen, nearly in the center of the line. You'll see the
spark flash of the canister being ignited just as it hits him. Someone else trips on the top of the line, and a flashbang is thrown on them as well
as people rush in, but the camera cuts away just as two guys
-Man standing on line.
-Spark flash coming from Police line.
(the same spark flash shown in the first vid I posted)
-Man lying on the ground.
The video cuts away before the flashbang that goes off when the people are rushing in to pick him up (it seems they're just cycling the same 40-50sec
clip of the beginning of the assault). The reporter didn't see anything because he was on the ground. He isn't seeing the aerial footage that
those at the station are seeing. He's reporting on his vantage only, which was a block away. He thought the person hit was a woman (i'm guessing
he was judging by Scott's long hair), and didn't even see the incident.
Here's another clip for reference, showing that Scott Olsen was standing on the white line in the center of the road.
Originally posted by lurker007
I haven't read all four pages, but from what I can tell they are denying, yet at the same time, admitting to the fact that they WERE armed with these
projectiles all in the same sentence. . .
Department personnel on site for the raid were not carrying projectiles, and the two who were equipped with them did not fire.
they were not carrying, yet the two equipped . . . . uhhhh I thought they said they weren't carrying projectiles
. .. . sounds like BS to me
The confusion on this point is because of Oakland Police. People are attributing the actions to Oakland Police Officers. The issue with the rubber
bullet claim and blaming OPD is OPD doesnt used rubber bullets at all. There were other agencies present that are authorized to have and use them.
People need to keep in mind that the video they are basing all of this on is only from one direction - crowb looking at the police. Just because it
looks obvious from that direction doesnt mean the officers view was exactly the same.
I can provide video examples of police dash cams where one view looks like a guy was shot in the back in cold blood. The secondary dash cam on another
cruise caught a different angle which showed the guy was in the process of pulling and pointing a gun at an off camera officer.
Had it not been for the second video, it would be easy to assume the guy was shot in the back for simply trying to run away.
Let the investigation take place and see what comes from it. The Police are not invovled in the investigation. It was all turned over to the alameda
prosecuting attornys office for independant investigation. Since its the PA's office they also have the advantage of being able to investigate other
agencies involved, where as an IA investigation wouldnt be able to.
Speculation is fine provided people remeber its only speculation. Basing charges and revenge on video footage from one angle while ignoring the law
enforcement side doesnt work.
I have no issues with people holding the police accountible.
I do have issues when other possibilities are ignored, IE thrown items from the crowd.
The goal is to find the truth, regardless of which side of the argument it supports.
I posted my last comment prematurely and didn't notice my mistake until after my editing window had passed. This is how it should have read.
Though I'm guessing people caught my meaning through the star recognition.
The 1:40 mark. Olsen is standing on the [verticle white line] on the lefthand side of the screen, nearly in the center of the line. You'll see the
spark flash of the canister being ignited just as it hits him. Someone else trips on the top of the line, and a flashbang is thrown on them as well
as people rush in, similar to what happened to Scott Olsen.
-Man standing on line.
-Spark flash coming from Police line.
(the same spark flash shown in the first vid I posted)
-Man lying on the ground.
The video cuts away before the flashbang that goes off when the people are rushing in to pick him up (it seems they're just cycling the same 40-50sec
clip of the beginning of the assault). The reporter didn't see anything because he was on the ground. He isn't seeing the aerial footage that those
at the station are seeing. He's reporting on his vantage only, which was a block away. He thought the person hit was a woman (i'm guessing he was
judging by Scott's long hair), and didn't even see the incident.
Here's another clip for reference, showing that Scott Olsen was standing on the white line in the center of the road.
[end revision]
edit on 2-11-2011 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)
When the rubber bullet disclosure was made, the item changed from a ribber bullet to the flash bangs used. When it was pointed out that the flash
bangs dont explode with shrapnal, it was then suggested to be the result of a tear gas canister being fired.
Umm, no, the flashbang was tossed into the crowd of people trying to carry the already injured vet away, which is documented clearly on video.
He was facing the cops, camera pans, he's on the ground laying on his back giving the appearance of him being hit with something, in the head, from
the front. no protesters were throwing stuff in the video. People rush over to help him, a cop moves from the front of the line a foot or two behind
the line of cops then you see the flash bang get tossed, from behind the cops, trajectory appears to lead to that cop who stepped back. One of the
protesters, on the left in the video in a dark hoody, sees it either in the air or as it hits the ground and starts to move away as it explodes.
this is all clearly on film, so are you just making crap up, or are you commenting on a situation you clearly know nothing about?
There are at least three different videos of the incident, in looking at them, the subject begins to walk away from a sparking projectile that landed
in his vicinity. He's looking back at the object at one point, but as I recall, his left shoulder wa towards the barricade,and he was looking back at
the thrown device over his right shoulder. I'll have to look at it again.
As soon as that thing he's walking away from 'explodes', he goes down, facing the projectile.
I'd like a Marine to tell me if hitting the deck is a trigger response to shells landing, because he goes down as soon as the projectile explodes.
I looked at the footage, nd was all like, "Aha! Fragments of that explosive hit him!", then I find out from helpful posters that there were no
fragments in flashbangs and smokers.
He got quite a noggin crack to his Broca's area, which is above the left ear, so I'm having difficulty in placing the hit in accordance to his
stance at the time of the explosion.
Perhaps it was just coincidence he went down simultaniosly as the device exploded. Perhaps something was fired or thrown at a weirdly synched time.
at 54 seconds until 56 seconds you can clearly see the beginnings of a flash (its a flash bang not a water bottle) coming from the direction of the
accused officer you see scott olsens head going back at the beginning of the 55 mark and at the end of 56 seconds going in to 57 you can see the
sparks from the flash bang 1:10 to 1:14 shows this far clearer at 1:41 - 1:43 some kind of canister or something is thrown 1:43 - 1:45 another
projectile is hand thrown apparently a gas canister at the group attempting to rescue scott olsen then those rescuing him were fired
on here we see a protestor makeing a statement about that
here is how scots fellow marines view the situation
and here
and another marine (with comments from many others)
and again
Scott Olsen wrote the american people a blank cheque he was prepared to give everything up to and including his own life to protect america
these were the projectiles fired
the paint balls fired at protesters were not fired from guns considered safe in a paint ball game.
In 2003 oakland pd stated "The potential is just as severe as a firearm," said Oakland Police Sgt. Gary Foppiano. (referring to a standard paintball
gun) but these were no ordinary paintball guns so should not be dismissed as any less lethal than the other chemical weapons used that day on unarmed
civilians and military personnel
the police (involved) intended to hit Olsen in the head (and did)
he took a rubber round in the head. He is in critical condition and may die. He may never speak again.
That was not a mistake; that was aimed fire and an intentional attempted assassination. Sorry folks, that’s facts – from 50′ you don’t
“miss” and hit someone in the head with these things if you’re shooting for the legs or other non-vital parts. He was shot in the head by
someone who aimed for the head. Those projectiles are not “non-lethal” and the bomb thrown by a cop at the people trying to come to his assistance
after he fell wasn’t tossed accidentally either.
An Oakland police SWAT team finished second in a prestigious, internationally known training competition in 2010, losing out to a group of Israeli
police but beating more than two dozen other Bay Area law enforcement agencies that participated.